Yeah and who the **** did whitaker beat at 147 besides mcgirt? Chavez, lol. Chavez is a better welterweight win over 7-8 guys that were top ranked. Let me guess chavez beats muniz, lewis, lopez, menetrey and reigns as welterweight champ for years. Geez sweet scientist where is Chavez in your all time welterweight ranking? Top 25-30. Napoles's 147 career is way better, those guys would easily beat the cardonas, rodriguez, jacobs and riveras. Not to mention the deadly russian, pestrieav.
It depends on the circumstances. Is it harder for Sugar Ray Leonard to beat a lightweight in Roberto Duran, or a middleweight in Marvin Hagler? I'd agree about Perkins. Of course, Eddie reckons he beat Jose. Yeah, well that's a big if. A tough fighter like Ortiz could be just the sort that could bust Napoles up over 15 rounds. Worse fighters did it, did they not? (Backus, LC Morgan).
Going over old territory pal, I've already admitted his 147 feats are better than Whitaker's. Though as I said, if you grant that Whitaker held his own against Oscar you can see Whitaker in a more positive light at 147. If you think he won, as some do, myself included, you can see him in an ever more positive light.
Theres no speculation needed to prove that it is harder for a lightweight to beat a hall of fame welterweight than it is for them to beat a blown up featherweight, thats common sense.
Ortiz was also one of the great all-rounders. Now he'll be denouncing Elorde as a 'blown up flyweight who did **** all above 130', surely? What about Laguna, the bantamweight who couldn't beat Saldivar at feather(ish) because of course we don't give Pea 'winners kudos' for Oscar so not for Ismael over Saldivar either. Buchanan never lost to Laguna AND was the only man to stop Ortiz therefore Buchanan>Ortiz>Pea>Pea>Roy Ortiz's lightweight reign was ****.
He didnt win though, oscar's reach was a huge problem throughout the fight, oscar landed the much more meaningful shots, it was clear as day for anyone that saw the fight, and i absolutely loathe oscar de la hoya, hes far from my favourite fighter. I judge fights based on who did more damage and who controlled the fight, clowing around and making someone miss doesnt score points. I rewatched the entire fight against yesterday, clear cut 7-5 win for oscar.
I was editing some typos when I came to that conclusion myself. 'Old Bones' was just that. Why I never mentioned him.
No, Ortiz beat all the top contenders at lightweight, beat the 2nd best lightweight of that era in ismael laguna, and soundily beat locche but was given a bs draw. Locche and Loi were 2 of the best junior welterweights of that era, laguna was the 2nd best lightweight. Carlos Ortiz has an awesome resume.:smoke
Good for you. Many others don't see it so clear cut. Oscar landed the harder shots, but he got outlanded and outjabbed despite his reach and got a knockdown against him too. ANd when all is said and done, Oscar's hard shots didn't really land clean. The fight is a matter of interpretation of course, I'm not going to try and convince you of it. If you think Oscar won, fair enough. But to say that anyone that thinks different from you is wrong makes you seem a little naive.
Pernell landed about 35-40 more punches, but most of them were weak jabs that didnt even faze oscar. That fight showed me that a fast fighter with great reach would give pernell problems because pernell would have to make more efforts to land on offense. Then again its hard to say how whitaker would respond in those siutations because mcgirt was the only boxer that really tested him before 1997.
I had pea winning that fight myself. Close competitive fight no doubt.. but a past his best Whitaker's class was shown to be above a Prime DHL imo. A guy who acts like McGirt was some journeyman who would be tooled by Cotto, Ortiz and Bradley is kinda hard to argue with.
Pretty much. Ortiz isn't even an elite fighter. He's just not really all that quality. Just a step above a good fringe contender.